Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evaluation

Discussion in 'Economy & Infrastructure' started by santosh10, Oct 12, 2014.

  1. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Why “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Crucial: Sustainable World Initiatives

    > Sustainable Development is Not the Same as Sustainability:

    Sustainability, from a natural resource perspective, means that we don’t take things from nature faster than nature can replace them. For an ecosystem like a forest, it means that we don’t harvest trees faster than the forest can regrow them. Otherwise we will eventually destroy the forest. For an underground aquifer system, it means that we don’t pump water out faster than it is naturally replenished. Making development more efficient, and thus more sustainable, is important, but merely making economic activity more sustainable does not guarantee that we are living within nature’s means.

    > We’re Already Consuming Resources at an Unsustainable Rate:

    With 7 billion people on the planet and rising levels of affluence, we are already exceeding nature’s limits. Every two years, the Global Footprint Network and the World Wildlife Fund publish a “Living Planet” report that looks at humanity’s ecological footprint. The latest report, issued in 2010, indicates that humankind is already overusing the renewable resource capacity of Earth’s biosphere by 50%. Climate change, peak oil, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and recurring food crises are all signs that humanity is overusing global resources. Leading scientists warn that we are in biological and general resource overshoot.

    > We’re Already in Danger of Breaking Planetary Boundaries:

    Thirty leading scientists assembled by the Stockholm Resilience Centre have identified nine “planetary boundaries,” which, if crossed, could cause irreparable harm to the planet and the prospects for future human well-being. According to these scientists, we have already exceeded three of these important boundaries: climate change, nitrogen loadings, and the rate of biodiversity loss. The other six boundaries—ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone, aerosol loadings, freshwater use, land use changes, and chemical pollution—to varying degrees are also approaching a scale “where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded.”

    > The Challenge is Getting Larger, Not Smaller:

    The demands that we are placing upon the planet are growing exponentially. According to U.N. projections, world population—currently 7 billion—is likely to grow to 9 billion by 2042 and to over 10 billion by 2085. At the same time, the world’s economic output continues to rise at 3-4 percent a year, putting enormous pressures on a fragile ecology and a dwindling resource base.

    > “Greening” the Economy is Necessary, but Not Sufficient:

    With the world economy on track to quadruple in size over the next half century, any gains we make in producing renewable energy or in conserving resources will not, in all likelihood, be enough to achieve a sustainable world. Indeed, historical data show that technological advances can accelerate the rate at which natural resources are consumed and the environment is impacted. Green technologies may help to de-link resource extraction from economic growth, but—by themselves—they will not ensure progress toward sustainability.

    > Resource Exploitation has Propelled Human Progress:

    In the past 100 years we have made major strides in improving the human condition. Average life spans have more than doubled. Food production has more than quadrupled. Living standards in many countries have increased by a factor of at least ten. Our progress has been propelled by the extraction of fossil fuels and the exploitation of natural resources, but it has taken a terrible toll on the environment, and our resource base is steadily shrinking.

    > Our Very Future Depends on Resource Sufficiency:

    We cannot maintain the progress we have made in eliminating poverty and eradicating hunger, unless we maintain an adequate resource base. Continued advances in human welfare will require sufficient land, water, minerals, and metals. We will also need healthy ecosystems capable of sustaining a wide range of biological diversity, including human life.

    > Sustainability Requires Resource Sufficiency Evaluation:

    We will never know if we have enough resources to maintain human development unless we actually evaluate our resource demands and compare them to what is available. No one would think of driving a car or flying a plane without a fuel gauge. By the same token, we cannot plan for our future without knowing whether we have enough resources to meet our projected needs. Every nation, whether its economy is developed or developing, should undertake a resource sufficiency evaluation, and the international community should provide technical support. At the same time, world leaders must undertake an international resource sufficiency evaluation to gauge global progress towards a sustainable world.

    > Methodologies Already Exist for Doing Resource Sufficiency Evaluations:

    Scientifically-based accounting methodologies, such as the ecological footprint, are already available to conduct resource sufficiency evaluations. These methodologies, and the biophysical ‘balance sheets’ that are generated, will give policymakers and the public a clearer understanding of sustainability and what is needed to achieve it. Our future depends on it. Resource Sufficiency Evaluation is our Road Map to a Sustainable Future.

    Resource Sufficiency Evaluation is our Road Map to a Sustainable Future. :thumb:

    http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/Fact_Sheets/SWI_2_Pager.pdf

    Sustainable World Initiative
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2014
    Srinivas_K likes this.
  2.  
  3. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat

    A small portion of the world's people use up most of the earth's resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions, writes Fred Pearce. From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network.

    It's the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.:facepalm:

    It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument — "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

    The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.
    Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

    By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people — that's about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

    Although over-consumption has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of our high standard of living extend beyond turning up the temperature of the planet. For a wider perspective of humanity's effects on the planet's life support systems, the best available measure is the "ecological footprint," which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

    They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.

    The United States always gets singled out. But for good reason: It is the world's largest consumer. Americans take the greatest share of most of the world's major commodities: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil, and natural gas. For many others, Americans are the largest per-capita consumers. In "super-size-me" land, Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.

    I do not deny that fast-rising populations can create serious local environmental crises through overgrazing, destructive farming and fishing, and deforestation.:facepalm: My argument here is that viewed at the global scale, it is overconsumption that has been driving humanity's impacts on the planet's vital life-support systems during at least the past century. But what of the future?

    We cannot be sure how the global economic downturn will play out. But let us assume that Jeffrey Sachs, in his book Common Wealth, is right to predict a 600 percent increase in global economic output by 2050. Most projections put world population then at no more than 40 percent above today's level, so its contribution to future growth in economic activity will be small.

    Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let's go back to carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world. They will raise the population of the poor world from approaching 3.5 billion to about 5.5 billion, making them the poor two-thirds.

    Sounds nasty, but based on Pacala's calculations — and if we assume for the purposes of the argument that per-capita emissions in every country stay roughly the same as today — those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor world from 7 percent to 11 percent.

    Look at it another way. Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world's population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.

    Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem — where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that over-consumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.

    But, you ask, what about future generations? All those big families in Africa begetting yet-bigger families. They may not consume much today, but they soon will.

    Well, first let's be clear about the scale of the difference involved. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.

    And second, it won't happen. Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.

    This is getting close to the "replacement fertility level" which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don't reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic "bulge" of women of child-bearing age keeps the world's population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world's population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.

    Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.

    The best analysis of this phenomenon I have seen is by Paul Murtaugh, a statistician at Oregon State University. He recently calculated the climatic "intergenerational legacy" of today's children. He assumed current per-capita emissions and UN fertility projections. He found that an extra child in the United States today will, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra Chinese child, 46 times that of a Pakistan child, 55 times that of an Indian child, and 86 times that of a Nigerian child.

    Of course those assumptions may not pan out. I have some confidence in the population projections, but per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population.

    In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world's environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.

    At root this is an ethical issue. Back in 1974, the famous environmental scientist Garret Hardin proposed something he called "lifeboat ethics". In the modern, resource-constrained world, he said, "each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in." But there were, he said, not enough places to go around. If any were let on board, there would be chaos and all would drown. The people in the lifeboat had a duty to their species to be selfish – to keep the poor out.

    Hardin's metaphor had a certain ruthless logic. What he omitted to mention was that each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying ten places, whereas the people in the water only wanted one each. I think that changes the argument somewhat.

    • From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network

    Fred Pearce: Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat | Environment | theguardian.com
     
  4. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    Impact of Population Growth

    India is the best country to study the consequences of over population. Geometric growth in population has pushed our country into population explosion leading to number of serious consequences. Some of them are:

    •Decreased availability of food and clothing.

    •Decreased per capita food availability despite phenomenal increase in their production.

    •Decreased per capita GMP and reduced standard of living due to ever increasing population.

    •Increased pressure on resources like land, water, natural forests, animals etc. leading to many far reaching effects like:

    a) Fragmentation of land below the economic level.

    b) Acute shortage of drinking and irrigation water.

    c) Denudation of forest (Deforestation) to increase the area under agriculture.

    d) Pollution of water, land, food materials etc.

    •Urbanistaion beyond a healthy developmental limit as more rural people shift to towns / cities in search of better work / earning. Urbanization has led to may problems such as

    a) Increased housing problems in cities / towns.

    b) Very high vehicular movement in cities / towns leading to accidents, pollution, etc.

    c) Serious problem connected to vast urban waste generation and its disposal.

    d) Serious drinking water shortages.

    e) Unending demands for civic amenities like roads, transport, markets, etc.

    •Unemployment problems of serious dimension both in urban and rural areas leading to reduced per capita earning, poverty, etc.

    •Hunger deaths - because of reduced per capita food availability and poor distribution of food.

    •Acute shortage of medical facilities including qualified doctors, medicines, dispensaries, modern health care facilities etc - due to high population.

    •Shortage of education facilities including schools, colleges, qualified teachers.

    •Serious shortage of power and problems connected with its distribution.

    •Increased inflation.

    •Increased borrowings from international organisations.

    •Reduced care of young ones leading to increased child health problems as well as vulnerability of children to many diseases.

    •Reduced health care to mothers.

    •Difficulties encountered in implementation of all national and state developmental programmes.

    •Increased government expenditure.

    •Increased density of population.

    In India, the over population has engulfed almost all our achievements in industrial growth, agricultural production, supporting services like medical care, housing, transport, education, banking etc. It has put serious pressures on every sector of our economy and every section of society. Almost all our national problems can be traced back to have their roots in overgrowing population. :facepalm:

    At global level, China and India are facing overpopulation issues of highest magnitude. But rate of growth of population has reduced in China substantially in recent years.

    Consequences of over Population/impact of Population Growth | Tutorvista.com
     
  5. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    Seven Biggest Environmental Threats

    The seven biggest environmental threats to the Earth are issues every person should understand and take action to see that these threats are eventually eliminated.

    Examining the various threats to the Earth's environment must include the human impact on the planet. Catch phrases such as carbon footprint, global warming, deforestation, and other commonly used terms have become the everyday jargon for those concerned about the environment.

    1. Human Population and Pollution

    A growing world population might seem like an obvious threat to the environment that goes far beyond the debatable theory of global warming. The bigger threat is far more complex and directly linked not to the controversial idea of a carbon footprint, but to the unique system of supply and demand.

    Consumers place more and more demands on the earth's natural resources as the population increases year after year. These demands leave pollution and waste in the wake of human daily activity. Compound this with each world government doing its own brand of commerce, many without environmental consciences, and you get the formula for environmental chaos and disaster. :meeting:

    A prime example of higher consumption demands can be found in the fishery industry, where the world's marine life is being harvested with few to no renewable methods in place. Consumers are also responsible via industry for hundreds of hazardous chemicals used in the production of various products. Heavy metals continue to contaminate land, water and air.

    The power of a consumer can be mighty when each person in the world realizes that action can be taken and changes made by carefully choosing how each consumer dollar is spent.


    2. Earth Changes

    The last major climate change was an ice age and the world is in the final stages of that event. The result is a rise in temperatures and the melting of glaciers and even the polar ice cap. Many highly-respected scientists disagree that global warming is the result of human-caused pollution any more than it can cause powerful hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, and even solar flares. This school of thought views earth changes as being the result of the natural processes found in an evolving living planet and its sun. While the cause of global warming remains controversial, both sides agree that it's a very real environmental threat to the world as you know it.

    3. Deforestation

    When a region loses its biodiversity, it becomes more vulnerable to other environmental elements. Deforestation disrupts the natural balance of ecological systems in the area where the trees have been harvested and far beyond. Food production can be impacted due to drought and erosion directly linked to the loss of forests.

    4. Ozone Deterioration

    Chemicals and chlorofluorocarbons pollutants are created by industry and agriculture. They have a negative impact the ozone layer. The lack of strict enforcement of laws to prevent the use of such pollutants compounds the situation. World governments that continue to allow various pollutants into the environment impede the recovery of the ozone layer.

    5. Acid Rain

    Acid rain is created by excessive sulfuric and nitric acid being pumped into the atmosphere, rivers, oceans, and land. While some acid rain is the byproduct of the natural processes of decaying vegetation and volcanic activity, the current crisis comes directly from the burning of fossil fuels. Water becomes toxic when acid rain imbues the oceans or lakes with an absorption quality that cause the water to absorb soil-based aluminum and poisons the aquatic plant and marine life.

    6. Dead Zones in the Ocean

    Another harmful source of excessive nitrogen being dumped into the oceans can be traced back to agricultural practices of over-fertilization of crops, lawns and gardens. The end result has been the creation of over 160 dead zones throughout the world's oceans.

    The oceans' eco-systems are dependent upon the natural process of organic ocean matter known as phytoplankton, which is found on ocean surfaces. This eventually breaks down and filters to the bottom of the ocean floor where it's broken down further by ocean floor bacteria. This process is called bacterial respiration.

    When too much nitrogen feeds the phytoplankton, like any fertilized crop, it begins to overproduce. The bacteria are unable to break down the plankton fast enough and the chemical processes that convert carbon dioxide into oxygen can't keep up. The oxygen is used up quicker than it can be produced. The plankton chokes out the flow of water and oxygen so that marine and plant life die from the lack of oxygen.

    7. Species Extinction

    An alarming rate of species extinction is happening worldwide. As of 2010, the rate of loss is estimated to be more than 1,000 times the normal rate. Greater preservation tactics and strategies are needed with laws put into place to protect species. Once more, man-made pollution is the culprit along with land encroachment by developers. Both causes are created by consumer demands as people branch out into areas that were once remote habitats for various species.

    An example of successful endangered species preservation is the American national symbol, the bald eagle. In the 1960s, there were fewer than 470 eagle nestlings. As of 2010, there were over 7,000 nestlings in the United States. This increase in the bald eagle population demonstrates how threatened species can be brought back from the brink of extinction. More and more animals and other forms of wildlife are being added to the endangered species list each year. It makes sense to become better land stewards, instead of encroaching on forests and wetlands.

    While there are many other threats to the environment that have a significant impact, these are certainly the seven biggest environmental threats facing the world today.

    Seven Biggest Environmental Threats
     
  6. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    "Science Summit" on World Population:

    A Joint Statement by 58 of the World's Scientific Academies

    In a follow-up to several recent initiatives by assemblies of scientists and scientific academies, most notably one taken by the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences that resulted in a joint statement, "Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World, '' issued in February 1992 (see Documents, PDR, June 1992), representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, 24-27 October 1993, at a ''Science Summit'' on World Population. The participants issued a statement, signed by representatives of 58 academies. The statement offers a wide-ranging if ex cathedra-style discussion of population issues related to development, notably on the determinants of fertility and concerning the effect of demographic growth on the environment and the quality of life. It also sets forth policy propositions, with emphasis on contributions that ''scientists, engineers, and health professionals'' can make to the solution of population problems. The statement finds that ''continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity, '' and proposes a demographic goal, albeit with a rather elusive specification of a time frame: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children. '' The text of the academies ' statement is reproduced below.

    The New Delhi meeting was convened by a group of 15 academies "to explore in greater detail the complex and interrelated issues of population growth, resource consumption, socioeconomic development, and environmental protection.'' One of the convening organizations, the Nairobi-based African Academy of Sciences, declined to sign the joint statement, issuing, instead, one of its own. The text of this statement is reproduced below as the second Documents item appearing in this issue. Other academies that did not participate in the New Delhi meeting, or did not choose to sign the joint statement (whether for substantive or procedural reasons), included academies of Ireland, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and Spain, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Notwithstanding the African Academy dissent, representatives of six African national academies, among them four from countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda) were among the fifty-eight signatories.


    The growing world population

    The world is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of human numbers. It took hundreds of thousands of years for our species to reach a population level of 10 million, only 10,000 years ago. This number grew to 100 million people about 2,000 years ago and to 2.5 billion by 1950. Within less than the span of a single lifetime, it has more than doubled to 5.5 billion in 1993.

    This accelerated population growth resulted from rapidly lowered death rates (particularly infant and child mortality rates), combined with sustained high birth rates. Success in reducing death rates is attributable to several factors: increases in food production and distribution, improvements in public health (water and sanitation) and in medical technology (vaccines and antibiotics), along with gains in education and standards of living within many developing nations.

    Over the last 30 years, many regions of the world have also dramatically reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough, if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. These successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase. The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the "demographic transition."

    The rate at which the demographic transition progresses worldwide will determine the ultimate level of the human population. The lag between downward shifts of death and birth rates may be many decades or even several generations, and during these periods population growth will continue inexorably. We face the prospect of a further doubling of the population within the next half century. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries.

    Consider three hypothetical scenarios* for the levels of human population in the century ahead:

    Fertility declines within sixty years from the current rate of 3.3 to a global replacement average of 2.1 children per woman. The current population momentum would lead to at least 11 billion people before leveling off at the end of the 21st century.

    Fertility reduces to an average of 1.7 children per woman early in the next century. Human population growth would peak at 7.8 billion persons in the middle of the 21st century and decline slowly thereafter.

    Fertility declines to no lower than 2.5 children per woman. Global population would grow to 19 billion by the year 2100, and to 28 billion by 2150.

    The actual outcome will have enormous implications for the human condition and for the natural environment on which all life depends.


    Key determinants of population growth

    High fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, high childhood mortality rates, low status and educational levels of women, deficiencies in reproductive health services, and inadequate availability and acceptance of contraceptives. Falling fertility rates and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards of living, such as increased per capita incomes, increased life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, increased adult literacy, and higher rates of female education and employment.

    Even with improved economic conditions, nations, regions, and societies will experience different demographic patterns due to varying cultural influences. The value placed upon large families (especially among underprivileged rural populations in less developed countries who benefit least from the process of development), the assurance of security for the elderly, the ability of women to control reproduction, and the status and rights of women within families and within societies are significant cultural factors affecting family size and the demand for family planning services.

    Even with a demand for family planning services, the adequate availability of and access to family planning and other reproductive health services are essential in facilitating slowing of the population growth rate. Also, access to education and the ability of women to determine their own economic security influence their reproductive decisions.


    Population growth, resource consumption, and the environment

    Throughout history and especially during the twentieth century, environmental degradation has primarily been a product of our efforts to secure improved standards of food, clothing, shelter, comfort, and recreation for growing numbers of people. The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked to human population size and resource use per person. Resource use, waste production and environmental degradation are accelerated by population growth. They are further exacerbated by consumption habits, certain technological developments, and particular patterns of social organization and resource management.

    As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes of far reaching magnitude also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing deforestation worldwide, stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, food, and fuel-wood in many parts of the world. :facepalm:

    While both developed and developing countries have contributed to global environmental problems, developed countries with 85 percent of the gross world product and 23 percent of its population account for the largest part of mineral and fossil-fuel consumption, resulting in significant environmental impacts. With current technologies, present levels of consumption by the developed world are likely to lead to serious negative consequences for all countries. This is especially apparent with the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace gases that have accompanied industrialization, which have the potential for changing global climate and raising sea level.

    In both rich and poor countries, local environmental problems arise from direct pollution from energy use and other industrial activities, inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration, inadequate environmental management, and inattention to environmental goals. When current economic production has been the overriding priority and inadequate attention has been given to environmental protection, local environmental damage has led to serious negative impacts on health and major impediments to future economic growth. Restoring the environment, even where still possible, is far more expensive and time consuming than managing it wisely in the first place; even rich countries have difficulty in affording extensive environmental remediation efforts.



    The relationships between human population, economic development, and the natural environment are complex. Examination of local and regional case studies reveals the influence and interaction of many variables. For example, environmental and economic impacts vary with population composition and distribution, and with rural-urban and international migrations. Furthermore, poverty and lack of economic opportunities stimulate faster population growth and increase incentives for environmental degradation by encouraging exploitation of marginal resources.

    Both developed and developing countries face a great dilemma in reorienting their productive activities in the direction of a more harmonious interaction with nature. This challenge is accentuated by the uneven stages of development. If all people of the world consumed fossil fuels and other natural resources at the rate now characteristic of developed countries (and with current technologies), this would greatly intensify our already unsustainable demands on the biosphere. Yet development is a legitimate expectation of less developed and transitional countries.


    The earth is finite
    The growth of population over the last half century was for a time matched by similar world-wide increases in utilizable resources. However, in the last decade food production from both land and sea has declined relative to population growth. The area of agricultural land has shrunk, both through soil erosion and reduced possibilities of irrigation. The availability of water is already a constraint in some countries. These are warnings that the earth is finite, and that natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits. :facepalm:


    Quality of life and the environment

    Our common goal is improving the quality of life for all people, those living today and succeeding generations, ensuring their social, economic, and personal well-being with guarantees of fundamental human rights; and allowing them to live harmoniously with a protected environment. We believe that this goal can be achieved, provided we are willing to undertake the requisite social change. Given time, political will, and intelligent use of science and technology, human ingenuity can remove many constraints on improving human welfare worldwide, finding substitutes for wasteful practices, and protecting the natural environment.

    But time is short and appropriate policy decisions are urgently needed. The ability of humanity to reap the benefits of its ingenuity depends on its skill in governance and management, and on strategies for dealing with problems such as widespread poverty, increased numbers of aged persons, inadequate health care and limited educational opportunities for large groups of people, limited capital for investment, environmental degradation in every region of the world, and unmet needs for family planning services in both developing and developed countries. In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children.


    Human reproductive health

    The timing and spacing of pregnancies are important for the health of the mother, her children, and her family. Most maternal deaths are due to unsafe practices in terminating pregnancies, a lack of readily available services for high-risk pregnancies, and women having too many children or having them too early and too late in life.

    Millions of people still do not have adequate access to family planning services and suitable contraceptives. Only about one-half of married women of reproductive age are currently practicing contraception. Yet as the director-general of UNICEF put it, ''Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race." Existing contraceptive methods could go far toward alleviating the unmet need if they were available and used in sufficient numbers, through a variety of channels and distribution, sensitively adapted to local needs.

    But most contraceptives are for use by women, who consequently bear the risks to health. The development of contraceptives for male use continues to lag. Better contraceptives are needed for both men and women, but developing new contraceptive approaches is slow and financially unattractive to industry. Further work is needed on an ideal spectrum of contraceptive methods that are safe, efficacious, easy to use and deliver, reasonably priced, user-controlled and responsive, appropriate for special populations and age cohorts, reversible, and at least some of which protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

    Reducing fertility rates, however, cannot be achieved merely by providing more contraceptives. The demand for these services has to be addressed. Even when family planning and other reproductive health services are widely available, the social and economic status of women affects individual decisions to use them. The ability of women to make decisions about family size is greatly affected by gender roles within society and in sexual relationships. Ensuring equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society is crucial.

    Thus all reproductive health services must be implemented as a part of broader strategies to raise the quality of human life. They must include the following:

    Efforts to reduce and eliminate gender-based inequalities. Women and men should have equal opportunities and responsibilities in sexual, social, and economic life.

    Provision of convenient family planning and other reproductive health services with a wide variety of safe contraceptive options. irrespective of an individual's ability to pay.

    Encouragement of voluntary approaches to family planning and elimination of unsafe and coercive practices.

    Development policies that address basic needs such as clean water, sanitation, broad primary health care measures and education; and that foster empowerment of the poor and women.

    "The adoption of a smaller family norm, with consequent decline in total fertility, should not be viewed only in demographic terms. It means that people, and particularly women, are empowered and are taking control of their fertility and the planning of their lives; it means that children are born by choice, not by chance, and that births are better planned; and it means that families are able to invest relatively more in a smaller number of beloved children, trying to prepare them for a better future."*


    Sustainability of the natural world as everyone's responsibility

    In addressing environmental problems, all countries face hard choices. This is particularly so when it is perceived that there are short-term tradeoffs between economic growth and environmental protection, and where there are limited financial resources. But the downside risks to the earth—our environmental life support system—over the next generation and beyond are too great to ignore. Current trends in environmental degradation from human activities combined with the unavoidable increase in global population will take us into unknown territory.

    Other factors, such as inappropriate governmental policies, also contribute in nearly every case. Many environmental problems in both rich and poor countries appear to be the result of policies that are misguided even when viewed on short-term economic grounds. If a longer-term view is taken, environmental goals assume an even higher priority.

    The prosperity and technology of the industrialized countries give them greater opportunities and greater responsibility for addressing environmental problems worldwide. Their resources make it easier to forestall and to ameliorate local environmental problems. Developed countries need to become more efficient in both resource use and environmental protection, and to encourage an ethic that eschews wasteful consumption. If prices, taxes, and regulatory policies include environmental costs, consumption habits will be influenced. The industrialized countries need to assist developing countries and communities with funding and expertise in combating both global and local environmental problems. Mobilizing "technology for environment" should be an integral part of this new ethic of sustainable development.

    For all governments it is essential to incorporate environmental goals at the outset in legislation, economic planning, and priority setting; and to provide appropriate incentives for public and private institutions, communities, and individuals to operate in environmentally benign ways. Tradeoffs between environmental and economic goals can be reduced through wise policies. For dealing with global environmental problems, all countries of the world need to work collectively through treaties and conventions, as has occurred with such issues as global climate change and biodiversity, and to develop innovative financing mechanisms that facilitate environmental protection.


    What science and technology can contribute toward enhancing the human prospect

    As scientists cognizant of the history of scientific progress and aware of the potential of science for contributing to human welfare, it is our collective judgement that continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity. Furthermore, it is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, and poverty.

    The natural and social sciences are nevertheless crucial for developing new understanding so that governments and other institutions can act more effectively, and for developing new options for limiting population growth, protecting the natural environment, and improving the quality of human life.

    Scientists, engineers, and health professionals should study and provide advice on:

    Cultural, social, economic, religious, educational, and political factors that affect reproductive behavior, family size, and successful family planning.

    Conditions for human development, including the impediments that result from economic inefficiencies: social inequalities; and ethnic, class, or gender biases.

    Global and local environmental change (affecting climate, biodiversity, soils, water, air), its causes (including the roles of poverty, population growth, economic growth, technology, national and international politics), and policies to mitigate its effects.

    Strategies and tools for improving all aspects of education and human resource development, with special attention to women.

    Improved family planning programs, contraceptive options for both sexes, and other reproductive health services, with special attention to needs of women; and improved general primary health care, especially maternal and child health care.

    Transitions to economies that provide increased human welfare with less consumption of energy and materials.

    Improved mechanisms for building indigenous capacity in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, and management in developing countries, including an increased capability of conducting integrated interdisciplinary assessments of societal issues.

    Technologies and strategies for sustainable development (agriculture, energy, resource use, pollution control, materials recycling, environmental management and protection).

    Networks, treaties, and conventions that protect the global commons.

    Strengthened world-wide exchanges of scientists in education, training, and research.


    Action is needed now

    Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to the interlocking issues of population, environment, and development. Scientists today have the opportunity and responsibility to mount a concerted effort to confront our human predicament. But science and technology can only provide tools and blueprints for action and social change. It is the governments and international decision-makers, including those meeting in Cairo next September at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, who hold the key to our future. We urge them to take incisive action now and to adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale. With each year's delay the problems become more acute. Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decided to act together for the benefit of future generations.

    Reprinted from Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, no. 1 (March 1994):233-238

    overpopulation -- NOW A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2014
  7. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua


    Over-Population Notes

    World is changing and few points everyone knows on the world platform in today's world, no need to read articles, as below:

    1st; High Population means high consumption of resources, and hence its higher prices for the people of whole world.

    2nd; high energy consumption and hence higher green house gas emission, hence increasing Climate Change threats this way

    3rd; High Subsidy to feed poor below poverty line, especially in case of India. which is possible only until its Middle Class may afford it. and we must avid that breaking point :tup:

    4th; and, we also encourage a "Population Tax" on every second kid taking birth in a family, which may be denoted to World Bank/ Climate Change Organizations to reduce its effects. i mean, if you can't reduce population then at least pay something to reduce its effects on the world's Climate Change. and yes, this "Population Tax" on the 'non-first' child would be same for the people of whole world. :coffee:

    .
    Few Key Points I always mention on this Topic as below:

    these are my own ideas so it does require criticism by other members to make the topic interesting :thumb:

    1st; if the poor of India ask the Western nations to share the burden of subsidies then they will simply kick these shiits of India, isn't it? and if its only Indian Middle Class who is generating money and running government and also paying heavy price for the welfare/subsidies for poor, then they do have a right to ask the Indian Government, "to what extent they will have to bear this burden of tax just to feed poor, and whether they will remain capable enough in future also to bear this burden on long run if the government doesn't control the population?????" :facepalm:

    like the news as below, around 50% indian population is based in agriculture only, around 600mil, while even 200mil population may produce the same agriculture output? and the same in cities of India, around 50% people just try to earn a decent salary which they can't, simply because too many mouths and limited resources. and Indian Middle Class is just paying high price to feed these around 600mil 'excess' population, but still there is no effort to have a control on this growing population????

    2nd; here for example of Pakistan and Bangladesh, right now overly populated Pakistan is full of target killings, simply because too many mouth and no resources to feed them. its also similar to 'genocide' itself?????? and Bangladeshis just want to run from Bangladesh, mainly to India. its the worse to see people dying without dignity than controlling population by force........

    3rd; many economists of India advocate "food security"/ "free medicines"/ "right to get a job" etc in India which is not possible until the Indian government may control its population. they simply can't feed 1.25bil population from the limited natural resources they have . USA is 3 times bigger in area than India but population of India is 4 times to USA? and on the top of that, Indian government wants to give welfare/ heavy subsidies to its people? if India face a sudden fall like ASEAN in late 90s and South America like in 80s, all these they will have to withdraw after that so better they keep habit to live in less and get rid off the unnecessary subsidies/welfares . for example, we always find Pakistan increasing petrol and diesel prices as per market prices as they can't afford to give subsidies while the people of Pakistan are poorer than India, but Indian government always hesitate to do so? but the day India will reach level of Pakistan, just one good economic fall is required, and India will learn all by themselves. :wave:

    4th; here we have report from world bank that around 60% people of India are living with income less than $2.0 per day, as below

    here, how is it wise to have high population if you can't give them good life? how is it advisable to have more population this way???

    => Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population) | Data | Table

    5th; Population of India was hardly around 341 million at the time of freedom, in 1947, and we can't have more than 700 million people, and we need a national consensus on it. :india:

    and as Overpopulation of India is directly related to consumption of natural resources of the world, high pollution and hence Climate Change due to high consumption of energy. reduced water level has also been caused in India due to the same high population and hence high demand reasons, hence India is directly answerable to the rest of the world about the measures it is adopting to reduce its population to 700 million, say by 2050
    :truestory:

    we can't let India become one of the reason for the destruction of this world, as the Earth belongs to every person of the world, regardless any nationality :nono:

    6th; and here, first there is no control on the population, as much as India can have, and on the top of that, they want to feed them for nothing too :rofl:

    => At Rs 1,25,000 cr, Food Security Bill largest in world: Implementation a challenge, says Morgan Stanley - Economic Times
     
  8. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    India's Young Population Higher than China, an Advantage???????

    Japanese Growing Old Age Population and its Effects on the Society, China on the same path-

    once we discussed, Indian young age population is very high because of high population growth, a good sign. while China soon going to suffer problems due to old aged people, which will be similar to how Japan facing this issue at present. and here i remembered a discussing with my Russians friends once, the country which has been suffering reduction in population,-"what will the Indians do when these young age people will get older after 30-40 years? will you have twice population than today to support them?"-:tsk:
    :facepalm:

    and then we discussed, "even if a Japanese or Chinese family has one kid, he/she is well educated, well established and can support his/her parents. and if on average 5 to 8 kids taking birth in common families of Bangladesh, over 85% population of Bangladesh suffering from Malnutrition, and 90% of them "generally" keep favoring Islamic fanaticism on different platform, the purpose of their sperms being used, which can't be thrown to Bay of Bengal itself.........

    and the people on the world platform ask very first question, "oil prices have risen from $30/barrel in 2003 to $100+/barrel to date because of high demands from high population countries, but why would we pay its high price while sitting in Australia, for example, which is twice bigger to India by size and has population at around 23million, same as the total number of kids taking birth in India every year?"
    and its very true about other resources like Iron ore, natural gas, coal etc whose prices are now very high for whole world, just because of high demands from high population countries.......

    again here, why would the world gets finally 'finished' one day due to higher Green House Emission by high population countries, just because we can't put a nail over these highly populated countries???? why would the people in other countries pay high price for reduced carbon emission, just because others may keep increasing it due to high population growth, as this is what they can do, as no one can stop them, no matter what?....

    (for example, population of India was 341 million in 1947, at the time of freedom, while its well closed to 1.3billion. Population of Pakistan was 34million while its well closed to 200million at present, while population of Bangladesh was around 36million in 1947 and its well over 160million to date....... at the same time minorities are almost finished in Pakistan, with news of Shia-Sunni-Ahmadi Sectarian Wars within Muslims itself there. on the other side, population of Hindus in India reduced from 88% in 1947 to below 80% to date, while that of Muslims in India rose from 8% to 16%+ of total population of India during this period. while the condition of Buddhist and Hindu minorities in Bangladesh is being discussed in the thread as below-):facepalm:
    http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...gs-new-challenge-delhi-police.html#post953493

    and also, how long exactly the Indian Middle Class itself may bear Subsidy burden of Indian poor, and whether they will remain capable enough in future too? 50%+ population of India, 650million, is based in Agriculture only, contributing hardly 16% in Indian GDP, while the same output can be well achieved by less than 100million people? even half of the 600million people living in Indian cities just struggle to have a decent life......

    we do need to understand the meaning of "Population Based on Resource Sufficiency Evaluation", either today or tomorrow :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2014
  9. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    Real Threat to Environment is Increasing Population

    Sunday, June 5, was World Environment Day. A day when polyester-fibre ribbons were cut and bulky books and reports using bleached fine stationery and funds from international agencies launched in CFC-using air conditioned wood-panelled halls. A day when the elites had the satisfaction of doing something for the environment and when schools encouraged children to use wax crayons and synthetic paints to paint trees and animals (which most of them have never seen except from the balcony of the resort-room in vacation or a fleeting glance of a black-buck when the family went on tiger-watching safari but failed to see one) on fine grade virgin-paper.

    Some enthusiastic urban yuppies parked themselves for a few extra hours in front of the PC to shoot a thousand mails to countless like-minded about their wish to switch off power for an hour on a particular day to ‘Save Environment’. This will be followed by couple of parties and boozing sessions to finalise the plans, which are then communicated through more emails, phone calls, bike rallies, SMS and so on.

    India’s problem with the environment is best illustrated and manifested at the safari parks. Moneyed and fat, gutkha-chewing and power-wielding urban families land in the finest forest resorts in subsidised diesel-burning expensive SUVs with the most expensive cameras and gadgetry to watch tigers and (lions if the place is Gir forest). Early in the morning, hundreds of them turn out, ready to shell out Rs3,000-Rs4,000 for an entry permit, entry ticket, guide charges, vehicle fees etc, outside the forest department offices. :tsk:

    A caravan of 50 SUVs, each loaded with about eight to 10 people, all searching for a tiger. Soon the guides create excitement over a wireless message about a tiger spotting some distance away.

    They wear an earnest air to convince you. When you return frustrated, they congratulate every one. “Boss, do you see that? You are damn lucky! The tiger passed just 5-minutes back…. See that fresh tiger-potty…. It wasn’t there 15 minutes earlier. Its still watery….”. I will spare you the banal details of what all the guides hard sell.

    The cubs, the children and adults then go back with souvenirs of Save the Tiger T-shirts and caps. Can any one in a sane state of mind actually believe that the tiger or even a wild sparrow wait at a corner under a thicket when a circus of a dozen diesel-guzzling and noise-belching vehicles pass by? Do 500 people who have spent about Rs10,000 per head for a jungle vacation really believe that a tiger will be waiting to give them a ‘darshan’ amid high-pitched-cacophony in all the spoken languages of India?

    These people maybe silly, like most of us are, but they are not ill-meaning. They just don’t know what to do about the environment: so they decide to spend their hard-earned money to at least see it. Someone needs to tell them what they can do to not ruin it; there is no need to make a patronising statement to save it.

    The whole circus of environment protection in India is heading towards becoming a farcical industry. They are far from talking about the real problem. Under the disguise of development and growth, the spineless politicians and money-multiplying industries will want to avoid talking about it. The economists have re-packaged the weakness as strength. The real problem lies in the ever-increasing population of India. With 1/5 of the world’s population, we have only 1/20 of the world’s land. We also have the world’s highest population growth rate on such a scale of population. For a simple comparison, we don’t even have one-third the land resources that China has. :facepalm:

    How is a fragile eco-system of a river or even a sea, if some 5 billion people use a flush daily? How can rain forests exist if the country consumes several lakh tons of tea every morning?:tsk: Like the disappearing Aravalli Hills, most of the hills near urban sprawls will soon be history as they will be consumed for mammoth construction projects as raw material. This nation needs an immediate re-look at the population policy and consumption of resources for industries if we don’t want to end up killing each other for a glass of fresh water or for a breath of fresh air. Will any economist, environmentalist please stand up on this occasion to tell the truth — where will we head with the exponential multiplication of our population?

    Real threat to environment is increasing population | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis
     
  10. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    High Population Growth Rate: A Threat to food security Initiatives in Africa
    APRIL 15, 2013

    My son, had I known before, the negative effects of having many children, I would have stopped on two children. I am finding it extremely difficult to ably feed my large family comprising of two women and 16 children, using my four acres of land, which I and my family entirely depend on for survival. To make matters worse, yields from my farm, have over the years been reducing, due to declining soil fertility and as thus, we occasionally eat once in a day.

    ” Those were the words of Nabudere Patrick, a resident of Namanyonyi Sub County, Mbale district, located in eastern Uganda. Millions of other African small-scale farmers are facing the same scenario.

    According to the United Nations Population Fund, the global population could increase by as much as two billion in the next 25 years. If this happened, world food production would have to double to provide food security for the projected population in 2025. How are African countries positioning themselves in this regard? :facepalm:

    Across Africa, the rate at which population is increasing is so alarming. It is increasing at rate that is far higher than food production in the continent. In fact, African countries like Rwanda, Niger, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya and Senegal are experiencing a population growth rate of between 2.8-3.4 percent per annum, which is unacceptably high and making itdifficult for these countries to feed their people.

    Uganda, which is currently experiencing a high population growth rate of 3.4 per cent per annum – third highest in the world after that of Niger and Mayotte – is already feeling the negative consequences of a skyrocketing population growth. According to the country’s ministry of agriculture, animal industry and fisheries report of 2009, 17.7 million people out of a total population of 33 million people are food insecure.

    Though African countries have made and are making agricultural stimulation policies and programs aimed at increasing food production, the efforts are being undermined by a high population growth rate.

    This is made worse by traditional inheritance systems, which are highly practiced and respected across African societies. For instance, if a father of 10 children has 5 acres of land and he dies, each of his children will inherit half an acre on which to put a homestead and practice farming. Their children will also be given share of this half an acre. What

    this will lead to is some lineage family members will find themselves with nowhere to put a home and practice farming. Therefore they will be forced to move to towns and cities to make ends meet. Can a family of say five people, which in African setting is too small, really be food secure through utilizing half or a quarter of an acre of land?

    Skyrocketing population is also responsible for land fragmentation in Africa, whereby family members who find themselves not inheriting enough land to accommodate their homestead and farming aspirations keep on buying small pieces of land in different areas to utilize for food production purposes. This is proving difficult for farmers to effectively utilize due to geographical distance between these small farms.

    Due to this scenario, many smallscale farmers in Africa have found themselves unable to effectively curb disease and pests outbreaks as they find themselves applying different methods.

    We need to stay aware that the agricultural sector in Africa is dominated by small-scale farmers.They constitute 70 percent of people engaged in the sector. As farm sizes keep on decreasing, due high population growth rate, so is food production from these small farms. In the end this is also making small scale farmers earn smaller incomes. This partly explains why 65 percentof small-scale farmers’ households are still trapped in poverty cycle, surviving on less than $2 a day.

    It is important for us to note that the negative implications of population growth on food production and food security pose major threats to human health, the economy, the environment and wildlife, as more and more forests, national parks, wetlands and other ecological lands, are increasingly being cleared by the increasing population in search of more land for cultivation for food production purposes.

    In my extensive travels and work engagements with grassroots farmers in rural Africa, I have observed that women are the dominant workers in the agricultural sector. They also produce on average seven children. In addition to feeding the babies, they are also burdened with domestic chores like looking for firewood, cooking, and fetching water, which all drastically reduce on their time in agricultural sector. Consequently it contributes to food insecurity in their homes.

    In sum, African countries should do whatever is possible, like designing and implementing population control programs, complemented by small-scale farming agricultural stimulating strategies, geared towards make small-scale farming productive and profitable. It is the only way if we are to attain food security and sustainable economic transformation powered by agricultural sector.

    High Population Growth Rate: A Threat to food security Initiatives in Africa.
     
  11. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    China's one-child policy means many benefits for parents

    Li Tianhao has just given birth to a baby boy blessed with his mother's nose, his father's mouth and an impressive ability to sleep through even the loudest disturbance.

    It is a skill the newborn will be fortunate to maintain as he has been born in Henan, the most crowded province in the world's most populous nation as the human family edged closer to the 7 billion mark.

    Yet he will probably grow up alone. Although Henan last year became the first province in China to register its 100 millionth resident giving it a population bigger than any country in Europe it also claims some of the greatest successes in taming demographic growth through its family planning policies.

    This has not happened by accident. Henan is one of the most environmentally stressed areas of China with a quarter of the water and a fifth of the land per capita compared to the already low national average.

    Senior family planners say this justifies rigid restrictions. "The large number of people has put very big pressure on all resources, especially water," said Liu Shaojie vice director of the Population Commission in Henan. "Over 30 years of effort, we have put in place a systematic procedure for controlling the population. That has eased the impact on the environment. We are doing glorious work." :thumb:

    Many environmentalists agree that population control is essential if humanity is to move on to a more sustainable track, but how can this be done? China has gone further than any nation in trying to answer this question over the past 30 years. But both the means and the ends remain the subject of fierce controversy.

    When the one-child policy started in the 1970s, Liu says, women in Henan gave birth to an average of 5.8 children in their lifetimes. Their counterparts today have less than 1.7. The change, he said, means 30 million fewer births – equivalent to preventing one every 30 seconds for three decades. And that is just in Henan. Across all of China, the government claims there would be more than 300 million more children without the family planning policy.

    This policy was initiated primarily for economic and education reasons, but it is increasingly cited as an environmental blessing. According to Liu, the population controls have kept sulphur dioxide emissions down by 17.6% and the main source of water pollution by 30.8%. Without it, he says, the average person in Henan would have a third less land and a quarter less forest. It has also, he claims, prevented between 137m and 200m tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. :truestory:

    Such extrapolations are questionable. The current measures were not put in place to save the global environment, but to redress one of the biggest errors made by Mao Zedong. The founder of the People's Republic was advised in the 1950s that China's population was growing dangerously fast, but he urged women to have more babies because, as he put it, they were like aircraft carriers launching fighter planes. Today, Chinese officials and scholars privately describe this as Mao's greatest mistake. If he had put in place a two-child policy in the fifties, today's one-child policy would not be necessary.

    The description of the system as a "one-child policy" is misleading. Most married women in China have the chance to bear two offspring, but the entitlement to breed beyond a solitary child is determined by a complex set of rules that vary from province to province and are often applied differently from village to village.

    Broadly speaking, urban couples are allowed one child, rural families can try for a second if the first is a girl and women from ethnic minorities are permitted to give birth two or three times in their lifetime. But there are close to a dozen exceptions, including if a baby has disabilities or if the mother and father are both single children. Communist cadres and government officials can be fired for procreational transgressions because they are supposed to set an example. By contrast, Tibetans have the fewest restrictions.

    Money is another key factor. The rich in Shanghai and Beijing can easily afford the penalties for a second or third child. The poor in Gansu and Yunnan, by contrast are at risk of having their meagre property confiscated if they fail to remain within birthing quotas.

    For family planners like Liu, these injustices and disturbances are seen not as failures, but as aberrations that call for policy tweaks. Countless adjustments over the past 30 years have created a mind-bogglingly complex system that touches on everything from contraception and sterilisation to pensions and tax incentives. In Henan alone, Liu says the family planning policy employs 17,000 administrators and 22,000 nursing and technical staff. In addition, support organisations claim a combined membership of 9,600,000 volunteers, who engage in work as diverse as spreading propaganda to monitoring menstruation cycles- something that is still common in villages though rare in cities.

    The state has gone to remarkable lengths to try to fill the gaps left by the missing children. Rule-abiding parents can get a monthly stipend, extra pension benefits when they are older, preferential hospital treatment, first choice for government jobs, extra land allowances and, in some case, free homes and a tonne of free water a month. Their children are even given bonus points in middle school entrance exams.

    The system is incredibly expensive. The provincial government sets aside 40 yuan per person for the policy, which adds up to 4bn yuan (£400m) or about four percent of its budget, but this is just a small fraction of the total amount paid by central and village authorities.

    Enforcement requires a huge and powerful bureaucracy. "Henan has much to teach the world in family planning, but it is a hard lesson to learn. Officials from Africa and India come to study what we are doing in China, but I'm not sure that they can apply it the same way," said Liu. "That's because they don't have a Communist party so it is difficult for them to take such strong steps."

    In theory, the only penalties are hefty fines - in Henan's case, three times the annual net income of the couple who have violated the rules. But the system still relies on a high degree of intrusiveness and communal pressure to achieve targets.

    Others argue that the impact of family planning is overblown and simply accelerated what would have happened anyway as a result of improvements in infant mortality, greater participation by women in the workforce and greater availability of contraception.

    As China becomes richer and better educated, women in rich cities like Shanghai and Beijing are opting for few children just like their counterparts in wealthy nations. And with the nation's population is forecast to peak around 2030 many say the family planning policy had outlived its usefulness.

    "Everybody agrees change is necessary. But the debate is about how to start and when", said Zheng Zhenzhen, a population specialist at the Chinese Academy of Social Science.

    "We debate the relationship between the size of the population and resource consumption. But it is not a fixed formula. It depends on how you utilise your resource. We waste and pollute. I think those problems – behaviour – are more important than the size of the population."

    In Henan, however, the message that you can consume more if you breed less appears to be more persuasive than threats and penalties.

    At the Hui hospital, the new father Li Yongli says he would rather have a first car than a second child. The shift towards fewer legs and more wheels in his family is part of a carefully worked out plan. The final goal is to ensure a better life and education for his son, who was of course, born exactly to schedule.

    "It's all part of the program," said the beaming father.

    Additional reporting by Cecily Huang

    China's one-child policy means many benefits for parents – if they follow the rules | Environment | The Guardian
     
  12. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    One Child Norm in India: Is it Possible?

    Rising population has been much of a concern for our nation in past few decades. To counter the drastic increase we have till now resorted to steps like providing free Family Health Planning facilities for married couples (you know the common ones I am talking about) and launching less-given-heed-to campaigns of Hum Do Hamare Do which lately has become Hum do Hamara Ek, thinking that the country which is having the largest illiterate population in the world would give heed to such campaigns. The situation demands stricter government interference to combat the exploding population.

    A One Child Norm, similar to what Chinese have done, is one of the possible solutions at hand. Implementing such a policy in a country like ours is not so easy. With likely protests from political parties, ethnic groups, religious bodies and other idle social organizations getting yet another issue to raise their voices against, implementing this would not be an easy task.

    Let’s go deep into the problem of rising population and the ‘One Child Norm’ solution.


    Why is One Child Norm (OCN) important?

    â–  â– Bursting population of our nation. Increasing poverty, unemployment, social, economic, and environmental problems day by day.

    â– With a definite check on population growth, such a norm will help us in providing quality health care facilities and increasing our literacy rate as population has a cascading effect on these issues.

    â– Limited availability of resources. 40% of the people live below poverty line and cannot easily afford meal two times a day.

    â– Such a norm may promote adoption of orphans thereby reducing number of orphans in India which currently tops the list.

    â– Indian Medical Association (IMA) has been reiterating its suggestion to implement OCN based on their survey.


    Associated Hurdles and Drawbacks of Norm

    â– ONC or TCN? Should it be a One Child Norm or Two Child Norm? If we go for two child norm, should there be a birth spacing as it is there in Chinese one child norm policy? (In China, a second child is allowed with 3-4 years spacing between the birth of two children but only if the first child is a female)

    â– Rural and Urban Factor: If implemented, should it be both in rural and urban areas or either of them? India has around 70% of rural population and rest urban or semi-urban. China too has majority of rural population but it has implemented policy only for families living in urban areas.

    â– Increased Abortions: This norm may lead to increase in female foeticide (few
    states already have sex ratio below 900 females/1000 males).

    â– Political hurdles: Unanimous decision on this issue is tough to be made amongst the parties and the bill implementing this norm may not be passed easily.

    â– Effect on population and economic growth: Considering the fact that India is a labour intensive nation, known for cheap labour, such a restriction in the long run may result in a shortage of labour and can affect economic growth of nation.

    â– Improved Family Health Planning: To practically bring such a norm into existence, more awareness for contraceptives would need to be created when India is already struggling to do it.

    â– Controversial nature of policy: The government may have to come up with separate norms for minorities who are more likely to protest such a norm.

    â– Fine and depriving individuals of other Govt. benefits: The fine to be imposed on breaking such a norm is again a big issue. Where per capita income of Indians is approximately Rs 48000, the fine for bringing a new life into existence is tough to decide. It can be similar to our tax slab depending on the financial condition of an individual.

    â– Sudden Decline in Population: India already has a declining population growth rate since 1980s (1.34% in 2008[1]) and also a lower life expectancy (around 69 years [avg. of male and female]). Given this fact, our Health Ministry through Population Foundation of India will need to justify that OCN will be a success and it will not lead to sudden decrease in population in coming years.

    â– The danger of extinction of family name in case of premature deaths of the only child in families following OCN.

    â– Other Complications: Policy for NRIs would be an issue.


    Solution to the problem

    â–  â– A National Survey amongst all adults is required to be done in a transparent manner since it concerns all citizens and would help in a consensus on this issue.

    â– Initially a one child norm to bring a sooner decrease and when population is stabilised we can switch to two child norm.

    â– Policy to be revised (if required) in each Five Year Plan and should not be a permanent one. If we face any adverse problems it can be withdrawn, but giving it a start is very important and a need of the hour.

    â– Implement it only in urban areas for first few five year plans and judge its demographic effect.

    â– Relaxation in the norm (as in China): If there are no siblings of a married couple then the couple can have two children.

    To conclude, we can say that One Child Norm seems to be a necessity but its implementation in India requires careful juxtaposition of facts and figures in hand.

    Family planning- One Child Norm in India: Is it Possible?
     
  13. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    [​IMG]


    Prepare for a whole new food fight
    April 11, 2014

    Dog Fight?
    [​IMG]

    If you want to go on eating regularly in a rapidly warming world, then live in a place that’s either high in latitude or high in altitude. :facepalm:

    GWYNNE DYER

    Alternatively, be rich, because the rich never starve. But otherwise, prepare to be hungry.

    That’s the real message of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the impact of warming on human beings, released this week: the main impact is on the food supply. :tsk:

    Of course, everybody who was paying attention has already known that for years, including the scientists. It’s just that scientists are professionally cautious, and will not say anything that they cannot prove beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    An ordinary person will look out the back window and say that it’s raining.

    A scientist will feel obliged to look out the front window and make sure that it’s raining on the other side of the house too.

    Then he must consider the possibility that the drops that are falling on the window pane are some other clear liquid, like vodka, and he must check that it’s not simply a back-projection onto the windows. Only then can he state with 95% confidence that it’s raining.

    (The other 5% allows for the possibility that he might just be hallucinating.)

    The standards for evidence in science are much higher than they are in ordinary life, which is why it has taken the scientists on the IPCC so long to announce the same conclusion that any ordinary mortal who looked into the question would have reached five or 10 years ago. :ranger:

    (The scientists really knew it, too, of course, but they couldn’t yet prove it to the required standard.)

    But the World Bank, for example, has long known approximately how much food production every major country will lose when the average global temperature is 2 degrees C higher. At least seven years ago it gave contracts to think-tanks in every major capital to answer precisely that question. ;facepalm:


    What the think-tanks told the World Bank was that India will lose 25% of its food production. China, I have been told by somebody who saw the report from the Beijing think-tank, will lose a catastrophic 38%. :tsk:

    But these results have never been published, because the governments concerned did not want such alarming numbers out in public and were able to restrain the World Bank from releasing them.

    So, too, for example, the armed forces of many countries have been incorporating predictions of this sort into their scenarios of the future for at least five years.

    The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States and the British armed forces have been doing it openly, and I have seen strong indications that the Russian, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese and Japanese armed forces are also doing so.

    When you look at the scenarios in detail, they do not just predict serious food shortages in most tropical and sub-tropical countries, which account for about 70% of the world’s population.

    They predict waves of refugees fleeing from these countries, a proliferation of failed states in the sub-tropics, and even inter-state wars between countries that must share the same river system when there’s not enough water to go around.

    That’s still farther than the IPCC is prepared to go, but to the military it’s as obvious as the nose on your face. As for what will happen to crop yields by 2050, assuming an average global temperature 3 degrees C higher by then, you have to go elsewhere for information.

    The military don’t plan that far ahead.

    But the World Resources Institute published a map recently that estimated the losses country by country by 2050, and according to the WRI’s calculations, they are really bad by then. Crop yields are down everywhere in the Middle East and the Mediterranean countries. In Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, they are down by 50%.

    All of Africa is down except Lesotho, Rwanda and Kenya, which are all or mostly above 1,000 metres in altitude. Food production is down in almost all of South America except Chile, also very high, where it is up.

    Crop yields in North America are down too, except in Canada and a few US states right along the Canadian border. High latitude is even better than high altitude.

    In Europe and Asia, latitude is decisive. Countries far away from the equator will still be doing well; countries even a bit closer to the equator get hammered.

    Russia, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland will be producing more food than ever, but southern Europe including the Balkans and even France and Ukraine will have lost production.

    India, China and all of Southeast Asia will be sharply down, as will Australia, but Japan will be only a bit down and New Zealand will be sharply up. It pays to be an island, too. :coffee:

    But this is not a “mixed” result, in the sense that it all works out about even. The total population of all the countries where food production will be stable or higher in 2050 will be less than half a billion. At least 8,5 or nine billion will live in countries where food production has fallen, sometimes very steeply. It will be a very hungry world.

    Prepare for a whole new food fight - The Zimbabwe Independent

    Prepare for a whole new food fight - The Zimbabwe Independent


    => in fact, its more look like a Pig Fight...........................

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2014
  14. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    =>

    (the above member Rocky.idf was a Bangladeshi member on a different forum)


    Increasing Muslim Population to Fulfill Religious Goals in World

    hmmmmm, its widely believed that the countries like Pakistan+Bangladesh are increasing population to fulfill their Islamic Fanaticism interests only.

    Population of Pakistan was 34mil in 1947 while that of Bangladesh was around 36mil at the time of freedom in 1947, while now its over 180million+ in Pakistan and over 160million+ in Bangladesh. and all the population increase in these countries is mainly intended to export Islamic Jihad in other countries......

    and here we always give example of India, where population of Hindus reduced from 88% in 1947 to less than 80% at present, while that of Muslims increased from 8% to 16%+ to total India's population since 1947 to date.......while about Pakistan, minorities are almost gone, Shia-Sunni-Ahmadies problem there we find now. while state of minorities in Bangladesh is also being discussed in the thread as below :facepalm:

    http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...minal-gangs-new-challenge-delhi-police-3.html

    and when we want to discuss "One Child Policy" of China, then it tells us the story of that country which wants to build itself, but doesn't want others to get problem from Chinese people. "Having only as much population as it may be fed by the limited resources, the China has." the topic of this thread. :thumb:

    while that of Muslim population is mainly meant to export Islamic fanaticism to other countries, the reason even if population of Bangladesh is more than the largest country of world, Russia, Bangladesh even import a third of the food for its population also, they don't want to stop population growth, for the purpose to achieve their religious goals. even if Bangladesh falls among the Least Developed Countries, having enough support from rest of the world too this way....

    and if you want to build your own country, you may do anything within, good or bad, but if you are increasing Muslim population just to create problems for the non-Islamic states of world, we have a reason to ask, "WHY?"

    what exactly these highly populated Muslim countries are intended in this world, we do have a reason to get to know :thumb:

    for example, population of Australia is less than 25million, while its a quite big country with hefty resources. and here, they do have a reason to ask, what others are doing in this world? would Christian states also increase Christian population to have competition with others, or, others would learn something in this regard?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2014
  15. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE

    The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet. :ranger:

    Portland, Oregon, for example, decreased its combined per-capita residential energy and car driving carbon footprint by 5 percent between 2000 and 2005. During this same period, however, its population grew by 8 percent.

    A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.” :facepalm:

    One of the study’s authors, Paul Murtaugh, warned that: “In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime. Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources. . . . Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."

    The size of the carbon legacy is closely tied to consumption patterns. Under current conditions, a child born in the United States will be responsible for almost seven times the carbon emissions of a child born in China and 168 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh. :thumb:

    The globalization of the world economy, moreover, can mask the true carbon footprint of individual nations. China, for example, recently surpassed the United States to become the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter. But a large portion of those gases is emitted in the production of consumer goods for the United States and Europe. Thus a large share of “China’s” greenhouse gas footprint is actually the displaced footprint of high-consumption western nations.

    [​IMG]

    The United States has the largest population in the developed world, and is the only developed nation experiencing significant population growth: Its population may double before the end of the century. Its 300 million inhabitants produce greenhouse gases at a per-capita rate that is more than double that of Europe, five times the global average, and more than 10 times the average of developing nations. The U.S. greenhouse gas contribution is driven by a disastrous combination of high population, significant growth, and massive (and rising) consumption levels, and thus far, lack of political will to end our fossil-fuel addiction.

    More than half of the U.S. population now lives in car-dependent suburbs. Cumulatively, we drive 3 trillion miles each year. The average miles traveled per capita is increasing rapidly, and the transportation sector now accounts for one-third of all U.S. carbon emissions.

    Another one-fifth of U.S. carbon emissions comes from the residential sector. Average home sizes have increased dramatically in recent decades, as has the accompanying footprint of each home. Suburban sprawl contributes significantly to deforestation, reducing the capacity of the planet to absorb the increased CO2 we emit. Due to a dramatic decrease in household size, from 3.1 persons per home in 1970 to 2.6 in 2000, homebuilding is outpacing the population growth that is driving it. More Americans are driving farther to reach bigger homes with higher heating and cooling demands and fewer people per household than ever before. All of these trends exacerbate the carbon footprint inherent in the basic energy needs of a burgeoning U.S. population. :coffee:

    Globally, recent research indicates that assumptions regarding declining fertility rates used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop future emissions scenarios may be overly optimistic. While fertility rates have generally declined over the past few decades, progress has slowed in recent years, especially in developing nations, largely due to cutbacks in family planning assistance and political interference from the United States. And even if fertility rates are reduced to below replacement levels, population levels will continue to climb steeply for some time as people live longer and billions of young people mature and proceed through their reproductive years. Per-capita greenhouse gas emissions may drop, but the population bulge will continue to contribute to a dangerous increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Time is short, but it not too late to stop runaway global warming. Economy-wide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to a level that brings atmospheric CO2 back from 386 parts per million to 350 or less, scaling back first-world consumption patterns, and long-term population reduction to ecologically sustainable levels will solve the global warming crisis and move us to toward a healthier, more stable, post-fossil fuel, post-growth addicted society.

    Human Population Growth and Climate Change
     
  16. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    the above, a good news about Bangladesh, at least, which may have a place here too. :ranger:

    which also states about a country with over 170million population, more than total population of the largest country of world, Russia, filled with Islamic Fanaticism, and then they find India as the place they may run......

    once i had demanded "Permanent Visa on Arrival" for Bangladeshi nationals in US/Italy, when i saw good support for these Bangladeshi Infiltrators in India during the last UPA government :ranger:
     
  17. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    Consequences of High Population

    The growth in human population around the world affects all people through its impacts on the economy, social and environment sectors. Rapid human population growth has a variety of consequences which in this essay it would be separated becoming micro and macro levels consequences. The micro level consequences in this context are referred to individual and family things while the macro level consequences are referred to regional, national and global things instead. :ranger:

    At the micro level, rapid population growth has delivered to unmet need which significantly threat child and maternal health and family welfare (United Nations Population Information Network / POPIN website). If the number of family member increases while the family income still in low rate (poor family) and can not cover the family needs, so then children may be affected by micronutrient deficiencies and easily attacked by diseases which also have a detrimental effect on growth and development. Furthermore, most maternal deaths are due to unsafe practices in terminating pregnancies, a lack of readily available services for high-risk pregnancies, and women having too many children or having them too early and too late in life (World Population Balance website). On the other hand, lower fertility levels resulting in smaller families were thought to benefit both parents and their children directly, at least the wife has more chance as an employment to support family welfare (United Nations Population Information Network / POPIN website).

    At the macro level, rapid population growth has delivered a number of consequences such as environmental threats, poverty, scarcities of food and fresh water and international security threat.

    Environmental Threats

    Rapid population growth will emerge the expansion of human activity. The expansion of human activity will cause the destruction of forest and the loss of biological diversity which may lead to instability of ecological systems and reducing ability of the ecosystem to combat global warming. As reality, the population growth is following by increasing of water pollution, erosion of hillsides and silting of rivers, increasing of greenhouse gases, rising sea levels, growing weather severity, disruption of agriculture, and increase the energy and resources consumption (Population Media Center website).:facepalm:

    Poverty

    Rapid population growth aggravates poverty in developing countries by producing a high ratio of dependent children for each working adult. This leads to a relatively high percentage of income being spent on immediate survival needs of food, housing, and clothing, leaving little money for purchase of elective goods or for investment in the economy, education, government services, or infrastructure. Lack of available capital continues to frustrate the attempts of many developing countries to expand their economies and reduce poverty. Only about 20 percent of the current world’s population has a generally adequate standard of living. The other 80 percent live in conditions ranging from mild deprivation to severe deficiency. This imbalance is likely to get worse, as more than 90 percent of future population growth is projected for the less developed countries ( Population Media Center website)(see Figure 1)

    [​IMG]

    Scarcities of Food and Fresh Water :facepalm:

    Productive agricultural systems have contributed to economic progress in many countries, both developed and less developed. The Green Revolution of the 1970s enabled some developing countries to become net exporters of food. Yet, global population growth during and since the Green Revolution is continuing to consume more and more of the expanding food base, leading to a decline in per capita availability of cereal grains on a global basis over the last 15 years.

    The world’s agricultural systems rely substantially on increasing use of fertilizers. But now, the world’s farmers are witnessing signs of a declining response curve, where the use of additional fertilizer yields little additional food product. At the same time, fertilizers and intensive cropping lower the quality of soil. These factors will more and more limit the possibilities of raising food production substantially and will, at a minimum, boost relative food prices and resulting hunger for many. So will the mounting resistance of pests to insecticides, which are used increasingly by the world’s farmers. On a global basis, 37 percent of food and fiber crops are now lost to pests. At the same time, nitrogen-based fertilizers are yielding nitrous oxide, which adds to the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide humans produce.

    At the same time, shortages of water are at a crisis point in many countries. At least 400 million people live in regions with severe water shortages. By the year 2050, it is projected to be approximately two billion. Water tables on every continent are falling, as water is pumped out at far greater rates than rainwater can replenish in order to provide irrigation for agriculture. "India, for example, is pumping out its underground aquifers at twice the rate of natural replenishment." :toilet: Humans are already using half of the globe’s products of photosynthesis and over half of all accessible fresh water. Long before human demand doubles again, the limits of the ecosystem’s ability to support people will become dramatically evident (Population Media Center website).

    Threats to International SecurityAs mentioned earlier, population growth is a major contributor to economic stagnation through its depressing effect on capital formation. With growing numbers of young people attempting to enter the labor force, many developing countries have extraordinarily high levels of unemployment. Often high rates of unemployment give rise to severe political instability, which ultimately threatens national and international security. Moreover, the combination of poverty and violence is adding rapidly to the number of refugees seeking to move into more stable and prosperous areas. Growth of refugee and migrant populations are contributing to political instability and economic dislocation in many countries. Intelligence agencies in the U.S. and elsewhere have long recognized the implications of population growth for international security ( Population Media Center website) (see Figure 2)

    [​IMG]

    Consequences of Rapid Population Growth | Indonesians Resonance
     
  18. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    We need a "Population Tax" on every 'additional' child of World :india:

    to be paid by India and rest of the world, both

    with the suggestion of OCP (One child Policy) or TCP (Two child Policy), i favor 'Population Tax' on every child taking birth in world, after the first one. say, $1,000 for the second one, $10,000 for the 3rd child, and $1.0million+ each for the next ones.......

    I mean, if someone wants to put any burden on the country, on the world as whole/ on the Environment-Climate Change/ high resource consumption this way, then that family would first pay for it :thumb:

    I also favor, 50% of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the world bank, to handle the global environmental issue due to this 'additional' population. i mean, if any person of India wants more than one child, then half of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the Indian government to handle the related consequences on India, the nation, and half of the Population Tax to be given to World Bank to handle the environmental issues due to India's "additional" population. :truestory:

    and hence, the same we may demand from the rest of the countries too, pay "Population Tax" to World Bank to handle the related Environmental/High Resource Consumption issues, on every 'non-first' child taking birth in any family of world, based in any country. and yes, "Population Tax" for the non-first child must be the same for the people of whole world :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  19. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    More from the King of Cut & Paste :why:
     
  20. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    @Ray

    i have my own posts, articles, i have been posting on the different forums. none of my posts here is copied to others, all are mine, which i have been posting on the different forums. i generally post the "latest revised" posts of my own.....

    here, could you please get it confirmed from the Authority of DFI, is it against the rule to participate on other forums, until Im a member of DFI?

    i generally try to explain/teach the topic to other members before i invite them for a topic of discussion in the threads i run. hence it does require to post many articles on any topic, the articles i keep in my inventory. its the effort to first educate the member, mainly the new once, before we invite them for a discussion.

    i also welcome your advise, if any, to improve quality of the threads i run.

    thanks and regards
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  21. santosh10

    santosh10 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,666
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

    400 million births prevented by one-child policy
    (People's Daily)

    The global population will hit 7 billion at the end of this October, according to the 2011 State of World Population Report issued by the U.N. Population Fund on Oct. 26.

    As the "Day of 7 Billion" is drawing near, reporters have learned from the National Population and Family Planning Commission that the global population grows by about 80 million people every year. Since China introduced the family planning policy over 30 years ago, the policy has prevented 400 million births, and delayed the "Day of 7 Billion" for five years.:truestory:

    The proportion of China's population to the world's total has dropped from 22 percent in the early stages of reform to 19 percent in 2010. :thumb: Without the family planning policy, the country’s population would have already exceeded 1.7 billion.

    China facing five major population problems

    The first problem is the steady growth of its population. The country's population is expected to reach nearly 1.5 billion by 2020.

    Second, the overall quality of population is relatively low. China's labor productivity is not only much lower than that of developed countries but also lower than some emerging economies.

    Third, the issues in the population structure are outstanding. The overall sex ratio at birth is still relatively high. The aging of population is accelerating.

    Fourth, China's population is becoming increasingly mobile. The next 20 to 30 years will be a period when China's urbanization is fully accelerating and China's population mobility is at the largest scale and in the most active period. There will be about 300 million people moving from villages to towns and cities in China during that period.

    Fifth, the traditional function of the family is weakening. The size of families continues to shrink and the families composed only of elderly people and single-child families are accounting for larger proportions.

    Stick to the birth-control policy :thumb:

    China will still regard the birth-control policy as a fundamental state policy and adhere to it for a long period.China will try hard to guarantee the consistency and stability of the birth-control policy and maintain its total fertility rate at around 1.8.

    400 million births prevented by one-child policy - People's Daily Online

    400 million births prevented by one-child policy - People's Daily Online
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2014

Share This Page